What we will do is draw up a contract for you with those terms. We will set a term of 5 months for you, expiring at the end of September 2012. You could renew it then, but we'll keep the option of not renewing it, just standard business practice. That's right, we won't be "returning your coins to you at any time" -- unless of course that's what you want.

Here is your contract. If you agree, please give me a clean (new) address where to send the interest payments, because we will use blockchaininfo to track payments. We will also give you a new address to send payment too. These addresses and your email will be plugged into this contract and then you must GPG clearsign it and send it back to us.

A-I. Investment Hypothesis1. Cytokene ("the customer") will loan the sum total of 1,000 (one thousand) bitcoins to CPA at address [-to be determined-].2. CPA will pay the customer 3.5% per week in the form of 35 bitcoins per week to address [-to be determined-].3. Payments will be made no later than Monday, 11pm JST (Japan Standard Time) for at least one full week of holding.4. CPA reserves the right to return the principal (the 1,000 bitcoins) and cancel the contract given 30 day's notice to the customer and/or without notice after January 1st, 2013.5. The customer will allow a period of 5 business days for us to process withdrawls.6. In the event of a Pirate Default (Bitcoin Savings & Trust) this contract will immediately expire and the 1,000 bitcoins will be returned with respect to A-I-5.

A-II. DISPUTE RESOLUTION1. Any controversy or claim arising out of or relating to this contract, or the breach of this contract, shall be settled by binding internet arbitration at judge.me in accordance with the judge.me arbitration agreement. The arbitrator's decision shall be final and legally binding and judgment may be entered thereon.2. The customer must indemnify (make whole) CPA's incurred legal fees if they lose their claim, limited to the amount required to be paid by CPA to judge.me.3. All judge.me fees related to this contract must be paid in bitcoins.

This sounds great. The risk for me then is only the default of CPA, and 3.5%/week is more than I can get from other investments.

However, I will need to vet this out with my investors before I decide to take the plunge. It would require a minor modification of my share contract - right now I state that I "will not be involved in any pirate related investments" which I would need to change to read "will not take any pirate default risk". That was my intention anyway, but it doesn't read that way.

I will get back to you with my decision probably after the weekend. Thanks.

Right now, we're in the process of cancelling a large pirate account, so the amount of pirate we cover will drop by up to 2,000 and then be increased by 1,000 (your account). So your coverage would't actually start until sometime next week.

Very interesting. I does look like you've got enough capital to fully insure this, so I feel pretty good about that aspect. However, what kind of deals have you done for the other pirate accounts that you're insuring? Can you point me to the relevant thread for these? I just want to compare to the rates that you're offering me, thanks.

Anyways no, the details of customer accounts are private. However if one of them chooses to speak up, now would be the time.

If you compare this rate to YARR, then at 1.50 per share YARR pays 4%. So from a fees standpoint you are better off with YARR. See this is why I made YARR, because it is cheaper to insure people this way than to bother about individual contracts. However, contracts can be altered to suit the customer, so there are benefits in terms of how we structure it. If you buy YARR for example, you are not going to have 1,000 coins and you will get a lower income from your investment. So there are reasons to sign this contract, it's not just a one way street YARR is better or a contract is better. But we generally prefer the YARR route for it's simplicity.

By the way, we just deposited 500 bitcoins with Starfish Bank and i must say, I was struck with Mr. Harnett's professionalism. He is long on customer service, let me tell you.

So there you have it. This is why we are cancelling the 2,000 coin pirate contract -- because it's better for us to just offer pirate insurance via YARR. Better for you, too! Unless you need special terms in your contract. In your case, you pay a higher weekly premium because the initial premium (the load) is zero. That's the tradeoff.

Makes perfect sense. I still need to vet this out with my investors first. I will get back to you soon. cheers!

Actually I think he made a mistake. Getting 3.5% risk free ( unless you think usagi will default) is one of the best deals there are today... just because there is the word pirate behind the deal is not a very good reason....

"We are just fools. We insanely believe that we can replace one politician with another and something will really change. The ONLY possible way to achieve change is to change the very system of how government functions. Until we are prepared to do that, suck it up for your future belongs to the madness and corruption of politicians."Martin Armstrong

Actually I think he made a mistake. Getting 3.5% risk free ( unless you think usagi will default) is one of the best deals there are today... just because there is the word pirate behind the deal is not a very good reason....

If my investors don't want it, I don't do it. Simple as that. They have their reasons: mainly, they already have plenty of pirate exposure, and thus are seeking an investment with a return that is wholly independent of pirate's operations.

That said, anyone else should probably take this deal... esp when you can borrow at 1% and then get insurance on top - it's like printing money. But that makes me wary, because the same amount of risk is still there, it's just systemic instead of concentrated.

Actually I think he made a mistake. Getting 3.5% risk free ( unless you think usagi will default) is one of the best deals there are today... just because there is the word pirate behind the deal is not a very good reason....

If my investors don't want it, I don't do it. Simple as that. They have their reasons: mainly, they already have plenty of pirate exposure, and thus are seeking an investment with a return that is wholly independent of pirate's operations.

That said, anyone else should probably take this deal... esp when you can borrow at 1% and then get insurance on top - it's like printing money. But that makes me wary, because the same amount of risk is still there, it's just systemic instead of concentrated.

It's not really printing money, since... well, CPA is taking the full risk for a fraction of interest, so that money comes from somewhere, even if it's well hidden. But since CPA are apparently willing to play Santa here, I'd really like to see that concept applied more often (and have a second chance to jump on something like Yarr when insurance is still full!).

Even besides from Pirate, there is no scarcity of high-yelding, but shady ventures on the Glbse; for instance Obsi's "high risk passtrough" (to some undisclosed real business, not Pirate); also for TEEK.B there is demand for insurance (someone created HEDGE shares for it, to provide covering to some extent).

It would be firstly in CPA's best interest to get the opportunity to apply fairly high fees, but differentiating the risk.

..for TEEK.B there is demand for insurance (someone created HEDGE shares for it, to provide covering to some extent).

I created the TEEK.B surety bonds as an experiment to see if there was any demand. I don't think there is enough demand for a month-long insurance bond like I set up. As more of these shares fall in price, start forgetting dividend payments, or worse a total collapse of a security, I think more people will realize the risks involved and take out insurance.

Introducing constraints to the economy only serves to limit what can be economical.